Why is John Edwards leading in Iowa?

By Jo Olson, with Brad Parker and Ahjamu Makalani
September 15, 2007

This is the sixth in series of articles on the Edwards and Kucinich campaigns.

Why is it that John Edwards is leading in Iowa, yet his name is never mentioned in mainstream media reporting about the Democratic frontrunner candidates? The first state to choose its Democratic candidate for President frequently polls with John Edwards in the lead, and yet the media is more likely to mention Bill Richardson at the tail end of a conversation dominated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, than make even the briefest mention of John Edwards. Why? This is a painful paper to write. Each and everyday I strive personally, professionally and politically to move this country forward. I yearn for us to move away from narrow-minded stereotypes, racism and blind faith. I am a woman in a traditionally male dominated profession, medicine. True, time has yielded more female physicians in the past forty years, but sexism still exists in choice of subspecialties, salaries and promotions, plaguing those of us who forget our gender in the midst of the vigorous workday.

John Edwards is a Democratic candidate who displays a remarkable empathy for others. Now listen carefully to this, because it is not a given, and certainly should not be taken for granted. In his career as an attorney, he defended ordinary people against travesties committed by corporations. In a time when so many horrific issues face Americans and candidates, John Edwards understands that we need to get out of Iraq, halt global warming, and change our broken healthcare system. But underlying the chaos that this administration has driven the country into is the issue of poverty. It’s not sexy, it’s not even a hot enough topic to be discussed in the debates, and yet poverty remains one of the biggest problems Americans face. Right under our noses is a person who understands the deep needs of the country beyond the horrifying debacle that has been created by the Neocons over the past seven years.

So why doesn’t the media want to talk about this empathic, white, Christian Senator from the South? Why are the media, Republicans and the DLC machine forging every conversation regarding Democratic candidates around the race between a woman and an African American? I believe it is because, once again, the American public is being manipulated by a subtle and alarming framing of the debate. Rather than a true discussion about the qualities of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the discussion focuses around the elements of these candidates that are easily exploitable, and will doubtless be exploited should one of them become the Democratic nominee.

I don’t believe this is a "Republican conspiracy" but rather a well-planned strategy to deter Democrats from nominating a truly “electable” candidate. The concept of “electability” emerged in the 2004 Presidential race, when Democrats began mirroring the media in their conversations about who was too short, too tall, too thin, or too "French-like" to get elected in America. It seemed like it was perfectly reasonable to embrace these utterly ridiculous notions about how Americans would choose their candidate come election day. But ironically, in a country where misogyny, hate crimes, and bigotry continue to knot up our societal fabric, it is not acceptable to say someone is too African or too female to get elected. Unfortunately, we are too socially conscious to discuss racism and sexism, but not too socially conscious to eradicate these two dwindling but virulent and insidious "isms." The purist progressive voice in me screams that if we accept the reality of current social construct and our fallibilities, we are condoning it. We should rage against the machine, and fight the good fight by supporting female and African American candidates for the Presidency. But with the country in such a perilous state of affairs, reeling from the trampling of our Constitution, mired in outrageous debt, engaged in an illegal occupation, and struggling to recapture any semblance of international respect, we can't take the chance at losing the White House in 2008.

The reality is that Democrats were unable to win the Presidency in 2004 with a white, male veteran because the smear campaign against John Kerry was furious, evil and thorough. If any Democrat thinks that the smear campaign against the Democratic nominee isn’t being planned and implemented right now, he or she really hasn’t been paying attention. The Karl Rovian tactics that have been honed to an art form over the past years will cut through any youthful notion of social equality like a sharpened rapier, exploiting the fear that lingers in the American subconscious. I’m not happy about that, but it is reality. Again, this is a painful paper to write.

To better understand the true state of race relations in America, take a look at this Los Angles Times story from 2003: “Americans support the stand taken by the Bush Administration against a University of Michigan affirmative action program which uses race as a factor in determining student admissions.” Or this: in response to this question on a 2003 Associated Press poll "How close do you think we are to eliminating discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities in America once and for all?" fifty-nine percent of respondents answered “not too close” or “not close at all.”

Furthermore, consider these facts: the Census Bureau tells us that African Americans are less likely to graduate from high school, more than twice as likely to live in poverty, and are more likely to be in prison than Caucasians. There are only two choices:

Accept the racist belief that people of color are deprived of quality of life because of laziness, lack of intelligence, or anatomical inequalities or…

Accept that limited opportunities for people of color exist as a result of institutional racism.

In a time when elections are determined by a significantly small margin, starting out “behind the eight ball” simply because of an unalterable demographic characteristic would have a seriously negative impact on a presidential candidate. A New York Times article last month reported that:

A third of Americans in the poll say most people they know will be “less likely” to vote for Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman — more than twice the number who say her being a woman will make people more likely to vote for her.

Linda Carroll, 59, who lives in Crystal Springs, Miss., and works at an assembly plant, said she supported Bill Clinton and admired Mrs. Clinton for standing by her husband through their marital problems. But Ms. Carroll said she was “not ready for a lady president.”

“I’m not for this women’s lib stuff,” she said.

This may seem like an isolated incident, but check out the number of women currently holding elected seats in government:

Women hold 16, or (16%), of the 100 seats in the Senate and 70 (16.1%), of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. In addition, three women serve as Delegates to the House from Guam, the Virgin Islands and Washington, DC. In state legislatures the number is slightly higher at 23%.

So, why is John Edwards leading in the polls in Iowa? What is it that the good citizens of Iowa know that the national media is willfully ignoring? Maybe it’s that he sincerely cares about all Americans and what America could and should be. Or maybe it’s that he is the most electable in these trying times. Who knows? Whatever the reason is, the sober truth is that racism and sexism are alive and well in this country, and I’d hate to have that proven by losing the Presidency to a Republican in 2008 because Democrats refused to see America as it really is and not what they are hoping it will become.

Please, leave your comments on our blog.

Site Design by Virgo Graphics
Web Development by Turtle Island Web Design
Contact the PDA webmaster at .
Copyright © 2004-2008 Progressive Democrats of America • All text available for public use with appropriate attribution.

Site Search

Find Chapters

CD Point People

Podcasts & Videos

Action Alerts

Congress Schedule

In This Section:

Why is John Edwards leading in Iowa?

By Jo Olson, with Brad Parker and Ahjamu Makalani
September 15, 2007

Site Search

Find Chapters

CD Point People

Podcasts & Videos

Action Alerts

Congress Schedule

In This Section:

Why is John Edwards leading in Iowa?

By Jo Olson, with Brad Parker and Ahjamu Makalani September 15, 2007

By Jo Olson, with Brad Parker and Ahjamu Makalani
September 15, 2007